I, like most of America, saw The Simpsons Movie last weekend. An enjoyable film, with a lot of laughs, but still may-be 10 years too late. Most of the people I spoke with agreed that it was good but not great. My major complaint was that I wanted to see more of the film set in Springfield. I wanted to see more of the signature characters that we’ve all fallen in love with over the last 18 years.So I was shocked to find that the movie was voted as one of the best films of all time. Already?
Okay, to be fair, most new films with a built in fanboy audience immediately show up on the reader-voted Internet Movie Database top 250 movies of all time list. But as more people see the film, and more votes are counted, the film usually falls off the list completely (or at least into the 200’s). The Simpsons Movie made it’s debut on the list at around #33, which is a huge feat. The movie has since fallen to an 8.3 rating to be ranked as the #139th best movie of all time. That’s a couple points higher than such classics as Die Hard, The Princess Bride, The Graduate, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Federico Fellini’s 8 1/2, Dog Day Afternoon, Trainspotting, Groundhogs Day, Toy Story and Stand By Me. Also it must be noted that only votes from regular imdb voters are considered in the top 250, so first time fanboy voters trying to spike the rating aren’t put into consideration.
With 36,600 user votes, Simpsons seems to be holding its spot on the list. So the question is: Is The Simpsons Movie one of the best movies of all time? Does it deserve this placement?
August 5th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
no.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
You ask: “Is The Simpsons Movie one of the best movies of all time? Does it deserve this placement?”
Based on what? Just the IMDB database? Or should we go by box office proceeds? Or wait until video rentals have their say? Or word of mouth? Or should we wait five or ten years and see if anyone still cares, which really tells you if a movie has withstood the test of time.
So to me: the question is not possible to answer, except for each individual person. As far as whether it “deserves” this placement, again, that’s up to people. It’s like asking whether the latest Stephen King novel “deserves” to be popular. What matters is what people make of it. Right now “The Simpsons: Movie” is riding high. But, then again, it just came out. So that’s not all that surprising to me.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
In Ebert’s review he noted that before the film even opened, it was ranked 166th on the IMDb. I think that speaks to worth of such rankings…
August 5th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
No! Simpsons was good - but not great.
August 5th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Jeff: judging a movie based on box office or video sales is not an indication of quality. Movies like Wild Hogs and RV sell a lot of tickets and DVDs. But it doesn’t mean they are good movies. It’s not a matter of popularity because a big portion of those tickets and dvds are bought sight unseen - sold on the premise seen in the trailers and advertising. At least the imdb ratings are probably a better indication of quality because they are voted on users after they have seen the movie.
August 5th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
This shit always happens with IDMb ratings. It’s a great site, but new releases tend to get overblown ratings in its first few weeks.
August 5th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
I believe we can never state what is the greatest film of all time is, because at the end of the day the general consensus will never be the same. I personally believe The Simpsons is one of the best animated comedies of all time. And I hear many complaining that they didn’t have enough of the side characters… The show has been and will always be mainly about The Simpsons. Thus is why the movie and the show is titled after the family. I’m glad they decided to branch out of Springfield and try something new for the film. It worked. And when it came right down to it, the film never fully left Springfield… The Simpsons is one of the best shows out there. Crap like Family Guy and Drawn Together can never compare to The Simpsons.
August 6th, 2007 at 12:31 am
Family guy is better than The Simpsons currently. It’s fresher and offers more laughs than its aging opponent.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:03 am
It was a solid “good” movie…much funnier than i expected…but by no means one of the greats…
August 6th, 2007 at 1:09 am
Uh as big a fan as I was of this movie the whole simpsons-mania that spawned this “greatest movie” business has gotten way outta hand. Although I did enjoy getting buzz cola from 7-11 and getting a [link name=bart simpson]http://login.youmail.com/login/greetingView.do?id=2508[/link] voicemail greeting outta all the madness
August 6th, 2007 at 1:55 am
Peter: you say “judging a movie based on box office or video sales is not an indication of quality. Movies like Wild Hogs and RV sell a lot of tickets and DVDs. But it doesn’t mean they are good movies.”
I agree in terms of story quality, just as a book that sells a lot might not be considered “literary.” But if people liked the movie enough to see the movies, was it a *good* movie? What if many of the people who paid for it ended up thinking it wasn’t so hot? However, box office sales do indicate “popularity” which is another thing. These “best of all time” don’t say what it means to be a “good” movie, do they? Just say it’s one of the “best” of “all time.”
What I was getting to is: based on what measure?
My point about bringing up the various ways to judge a film being one of the “best of all time” are all pretty flimsy to me, except perhaps for waiting many years and seeing if the film still manages to stay in a certain range even as other films come on the scene.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
I personally didn’t find it ’solid’ as a movie at all. It was rather simplistic (like most films now and days), it felt like one long Simpson’s episode. Why would it be voted as one of the greatest movies of all time when its, A. an animation, not a film. and B. Something that could of been done in a half hour but stretched to nearly two.
Granted, the technical changes to give the animation more depth was impressive and well done. But the story itself just lacked any sort of longevity in every sense of the word.
August 6th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Im with Skaught on this one…
No.